W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [questionnaire] Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices ready for publication?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:45:41 +0100
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uqpzuf2dwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:11:06 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> I'm sorry that it has taken me till now to add a formal response to this.

Likewise

> I've had my annotations on paper, but I suppose it's hard for the WG to  
> see them there.

Mine are in my head, and I hope the WG doesn't get a spoon or spanner and  
try to look there...

> Like other commenters, I have quite a number of comments, so I suggest  
> that the answer to the poll is that the document is not ready for  
> publication.

Agreed.

> I think there are quite a few textual improvements that could be made.  
> And some that need to be. So in general I suggest that a specific  
> editorial session on it would be valuable. I see that was suggested on  
> Tuesday's call.
>
> If such a call is to be had I will do my best to attend and so won't  
> make all my comments here.

Unfortunately I am unlikely to make such a call (although I will try) so  
hope to publish my comments here.

cheers

Chaals

> Jo
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>> Sent: 05 March 2009 20:59
>> To: achuter@technosite.es; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
>> Subject: RE: [questionnaire] Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
>> ready for publication?
>>
>> > By the way, people should read Kai's replies to my comments by the
>> way
>> > (especially Jo and Dom where mentioned specifically).
>> Noted.
>>
>> > > +1.1 Purpose
>> > >
>> > > * "Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best
>> > > practice" might be better written as "Each of the Mobile Web Best
>> > > Practices contains a section called "What to Test".
>> > >
>> > > * The preceding isn't really about the purpose of the document, but
>> I
>> > > can't see where else it fits in.
>> > >
>> > > -- I think this came from Jo, so I would like to see what he
>> thinks.
>> > >    Also, we don't want to say "test".
>> > >    Jo?
>>
>> Not one of my better crafted sentences, I guess.
>>
>> Current Text:
>>
>> 1.1 Purpose
>>
>> The purpose of this document is to help content providers conform to
>> Mobile Web Best Practices, by providing additional evaluations for
>> their content and by interpreting and clarifying Best Practices in some
>> cases.
>>
>> Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best practice
>> called "What to Test". The evaluationsin this document supplement those
>> tests.
>>
>> Proposed Revision:
>>
>> 1.1 Purpose
>>
>> The purpose of this document is to help content providers conform to
>> Mobile Web Best Practices, by interpreting and clarifying some of the
>> Best Practice statements and by providing additional evaluations which
>> supplement the "What to test" sections of Best Practice statements.
>>
>> Jo
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
>> On
>> > Behalf Of Alan Chuter
>> > Sent: 05 March 2009 09:13
>> > To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
>> > Subject: Re: [questionnaire] Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
>> > ready for publication?
>> >
>> > By the way, people should read Kai's replies to my comments by the
>> way
>> > (especially Jo and Dom where mentioned specifically).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich escribió:
>> > > Hi Alan,
>> > >
>> > > Thank for you input.  That great stuff.
>> > > I will put my responses in the text and hope to see some other
>> > feedback
>> > > on Alan's points....
>> > >
>> > > -- Kai
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +Generally
>> > >
>> > > * Mark up the table of contents as a real UL list (without the BR
>> > line
>> > > breaks).
>> > >
>> > > -- sure.  Thought this was already the case, but haven't looked in
>> a
>> > > while.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > * The section for each BP "Relevant device properties" needs some
>> > > explanation. I understand that this means properties that can be
>> > > detected on the server. This is covered in the BP document under
>> "3.5
>> > > Establishing Context" [4].
>> > >
>> > > -- Dom had suggested putting this in and I think his intention was
>> > > different.
>> > >    Dom?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > * I think that references should be marked in the text
>> > > [REFERENCE_HANDLE] with a link to the  section at the end of the
>> > page.
>> > >
>> > > -- Yes. Also, as Francois pointed out the Ref section needs to be
>> > > formatted as well.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +1.1 Purpose
>> > >
>> > > * "Mobile Web Best Practices contains sections against each best
>> > > practice" might be better written as "Each of the Mobile Web Best
>> > > Practices contains a section called "What to Test".
>> > >
>> > > * The preceding isn't really about the purpose of the document, but
>> I
>> > > can't see where else it fits in.
>> > >
>> > > -- I think this came from Jo, so I would like to see what he
>> thinks.
>> > >    Also, we don't want to say "test".
>> > >    Jo?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > * Missing space in "evaluationsin".
>> > >
>> > > -- Ok
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +1.2 Relationship to mobileOK Basic Tests
>> > >
>> > > * The second paragraph ("Many of the tests described in mobileOK
>> > Basic
>> > > Tests are...") is useful, and is an addendum to MWBP, but I don't
>> > think
>> > > it belongs in this section as many of the tests described in this
>> > > document are not useful when determining suitability of content for
>> > use
>> > > on more advanced devices either. It's more a general comment on
>> MWBP
>> > as
>> > > a whole.
>> > >
>> > > -- Group feedback?
>> > >
>> > > * "completes the set of Best Practices" perhaps better as
>> "completes
>> > the
>> > > set of tests for the Best Practices"
>> > >
>> > > -- Here too, shouldn't use "test".
>> > >    Group feedback to Alan's point?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +2.1 Evaluation Scope
>> > >
>> > > It might be useful to cite the Web content Accessibility Guidelines
>> > (now
>> > > a W3C Recommendation), the section about conformance that has two
>> > > clauses "Full pages" and "Complete processes." These are not
>> specific
>> > to
>> > > accessibility and apply equally well to MWBP. So we should mention
>> > them
>> > > I think. In fact, just below it the item "A concise description of
>> > the
>> > > Web pages" is also relevant.
>> > >
>> > > -- Since we are not asking for conformance, this might be a bit too
>> > > strong.
>> > >    Group feedback?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +3.4 Background Image readability
>> > >
>> > > The Example should perhaps be an image (remembering
>> > > STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT). Without CSS it is black on white.
>> > >
>> > > The WCAG 2.0 Techniques [2] give a list of tools to check this,
>> > > including one developed especially for WCAG 2.0.  I think that the
>> > > Ishihara Test for Color Blindness isn't very useful as it consists
>> of
>> > > very specific examples. If people aren't using exactly those
>> colours
>> > it
>> > > won't help them.
>> > >
>> > > WCAG success criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) [3] gives a
>> > definition,
>> > > and exceptions to this which might be worth mentioning.
>> > >
>> > > -- I disagree on using a picture as this is a test for contrast.
>> > White
>> > > on black is a good way to demonstrate this.
>> > >    I am not aware of the Ishihara Test for Color Blindness being
>> > limited
>> > > to colors, but rather to contrast levels of two adjascent colors.
>> > >    Either way it demonstrate very well what this point is about.
>> > >    However we could certainly refer to more tools to check this
>> > issue.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +3.5 Balance
>> > >
>> > > Under "Relevant device properties: Support for non-linear
>> navigation
>> > > across links" I didn't understand this until I read the rest of the
>> > > section. Perhaps "non-sequential" or "skipping/jumping links" might
>> > be
>> > > clearer.
>> > >
>> > > -- Ok, I'll look at it, to make it clearer.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs
>> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G18
>> > > [3]
>> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#visual-audio-
>> contrast-
>> > con
>> > > trast
>> > > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#d0e437
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Alan Chuter
>> > Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
>> > Consultor
>> > Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
>> > Fundación ONCE
>> > Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
>> > Fax: 91 375 70 51
>> > achuter@technosite.es
>> > http://www.technosite.es
>> >
>



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 13 March 2009 07:46:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC